"Buy A House On A Flood Plain, You Get Flooded" - Environment Agency

11th February 2014

Lord Smith said: ‘Anyone who builds in a flood plain, anyone who buys a property in a flood plain, needs to think about the flood risk.’

The man has a very valid point, in my opinion.

Some are saying he "risks outrage".

Please discuss.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2556299/Flood-misery-months.html#ixzz2t1GWxEpw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

He did well no choosing the diplomatic service for a career don't you think. As a diplomat he would have made a great cobbler.

So anyway...


...where are we going to build the 5 million new houses?

I've just read that 1 million people living on the coast will have to move inland in the coming years!


lol

Seamen Staines wrote:He did well no choosing the diplomatic service for a career don't you think. As a diplomat he would have made a great cobbler.

Why? I'm not a fan of his, but what he says seems to me to be perfectly valid.

Are developers and builders not responsible for ensuring that the estates they develop and the houses they build are not likely to be flooded?

Are housebuyers not responsible for ensuring that when they spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, their investment isn't going to finish up under water and severely damaged or destroyed?

Anyone who knows the risks and ignores them has to shoulder at least part - and probably a major part - of the blame and consequences.

:D  A summary of yesterday's Flood Discussion's on NewsFix :

VICTOR says to read the fine print ==> they've been living there for the last 600 years... Senile old git !

CATMAN says they can move upstream or to higher ground ==> Good points, well made, Phil' !

SOME of Catman's regular opponents then stated that he "was only being a big meanie for blaming those poor rich-bastards for building their silly little mansions in the middle of floodplains and waterways"..


   Today's UPDATE on Responsibility for Houses Going Under :

BigAndy now posts this latest news item quoting Lord Thingummy from Lower Fogsbottom, stating the bleeding obvious methinks ~ IF people are silly enough to build on flood plains, then eventually they will get flooded out; even if it does take 500-600 years to eventuate in some places  !

I'VE been saying the same thing for the past 40 years; give or take..
A Good and Timely Post, BigAndy !!!    

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Seamen Staines wrote:He did well no choosing the diplomatic service for a career don't you think. As a diplomat he would have made a great cobbler.

Why? I'm not a fan of his, but what he says seems to me to be perfectly valid.

Are developers and builders not responsible for ensuring that the estates they develop and the houses they build are not likely to be flooded?

Are housebuyers not responsible for ensuring that when they spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, their investment isn't going to finish up under water and severely damaged or destroyed?

Anyone who knows the risks and ignores them has to shoulder at least part - and probably a major part - of the blame and consequences.

Oh dear that would mean accepting responsibility. This is liberal Britain, where they have to blame somebody else.

Beekeeper wrote::D  A summary of yesterday's Flood Discussion's on NewsFix :

VICTOR says to read the fine print ==> they've been living there for the last 600 years... Senile old git !

CATMAN says they can move upstream or to higher ground ==> Good points, well made, Phil' !

SOME of Catman's regular opponents then stated that he "was only being a big meanie for blaming those poor rich-bastards for building their silly little mansions in the middle of floodplains and waterways"..


   Today's UPDATE on Responsibility for Houses Going Under :

BigAndy now posts this latest news item quoting Lord Thingummy from Lower Fogsbottom, stating the bleeding obvious methinks ~ IF people are silly enough to build on flood plains, then eventually they will get flooded out; even if it does take 500-600 years to eventuate in some places  !

I'VE been saying the same thing for the past 40 years; give or take..
A Good and Timely Post, BigAndy !!!    

Oh dear you've done it again - got involved in something you know nothing about. Go and study our countryside and in particular the Somerset levels.

Beekeeper wrote::D  A summary of yesterday's Flood Discussion's on NewsFix :

VICTOR says to read the fine print ==> they've been living there for the last 600 years... Senile old git !

CATMAN says they can move upstream or to higher ground ==> Good points, well made, Phil' !

SOME of Catman's regular opponents then stated that he "was only being a big meanie for blaming those poor rich-bastards for building their silly little mansions in the middle of floodplains and waterways"..


   Today's UPDATE on Responsibility for Houses Going Under :

BigAndy now posts this latest news item quoting Lord Thingummy from Lower Fogsbottom, stating the bleeding obvious methinks ~ IF people are silly enough to build on flood plains, then eventually they will get flooded out; even if it does take 500-600 years to eventuate in some places  !

I'VE been saying the same thing for the past 40 years; give or take..
A Good and Timely Post, BigAndy !!!    

At least we don't get poisonous snakes and bloody big crocodiles swimming around in our floods...

BigAndy9 wrote:
So anyway...

...where are we going to build the 5 million new houses?

I've just read that 1 million people living on the coast will have to move inland in the coming years!

lol

  

YOU COULD always consider buying Romania and Bulgaria !

After all, you Right Wingers are always complaining about them coming over there and taking your jobs !

SO why not buy out their countries from underneath them, while they're not watching ?   

Why would I do exactly what I am against?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Beekeeper wrote::D  A summary of yesterday's Flood Discussion's on NewsFix :

VICTOR says to read the fine print ==> they've been living there for the last 600 years... Senile old git !

CATMAN says they can move upstream or to higher ground ==> Good points, well made, Phil' !

SOME of Catman's regular opponents then stated that he "was only being a big meanie for blaming those poor rich-bastards for building their silly little mansions in the middle of floodplains and waterways"..


   Today's UPDATE on Responsibility for Houses Going Under :

BigAndy now posts this latest news item quoting Lord Thingummy from Lower Fogsbottom, stating the bleeding obvious methinks ~ IF people are silly enough to build on flood plains, then eventually they will get flooded out; even if it does take 500-600 years to eventuate in some places  !

I'VE been saying the same thing for the past 40 years; give or take..
A Good and Timely Post, BigAndy !!!    

At least we don't get poisonous snakes and bloody big crocodiles swimming around in our floods...

  

AND, don't forget those cranky farmers and stranded tourists wading out amongst them !

  

BigAndy9 wrote:
Why would I do exactly what I am against?

  

SOME people would call it "giving them some of their own back !" (as a country..), BigAndy !

YOU wouldn't have to live there, either ~ you could always be an "absentee landlord" investor..

  

I think the tone of Smith is the issue Mr Moletrouser he has an acerbic couldn't care less style which is completely dismissive. You could imagine him saying "Let them eat cake" or soggy bread.

BigAndy9 wrote:11th February 2014

Lord Smith said: ‘Anyone who builds in a flood plain, anyone who buys a property in a flood plain, needs to think about the flood risk.’

The man has a very valid point, in my opinion.

Some are saying he "risks outrage".  

Please discuss.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2556299/Flood-misery-months.html#ixzz2t1GWxEpw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

agree they know the risks when they buy the house . I know it terrible and tragic for those who are flooded but they did know the possibility ,its the same as building on an earthquake fault or at the bottom of a volcano your taking the risk .

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Seamen Staines wrote:He did well no choosing the diplomatic service for a career don't you think. As a diplomat he would have made a great cobbler.

Why? I'm not a fan of his, but what he says seems to me to be perfectly valid.

Are developers and builders not responsible for ensuring that the estates they develop and the houses they build are not likely to be flooded?

Are housebuyers not responsible for ensuring that when they spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, their investment isn't going to finish up under water and severely damaged or destroyed?

Anyone who knows the risks and ignores them has to shoulder at least part - and probably a major part - of the blame and consequences.

I agree with you, so many new buys are on flood plains, totally ridiculous and should not be allowed. In order to buy one you have to have house insurance and have to state it's on a flood plain, so why are the builders allowed to do it.

That being said, that is not the same as the Somerset levels, which are designed to flood to a managed degree every year to enrich the soil, one of the reasons that are such good farm land. In there case, it is the management of the flooding that has good to pot.

Forgive me but for years dredging the rivers was carried out. Knowing we have worse weather the decision not to dredge is irresponsible yet the top man is oblivious or impervious to criticism.

He falls back on the there's not enough money defence. Sorry you spent £2.5million on PR. The cost of dredging circa £100k.

Will he keep his job? Probably. incompetence is a valued commodity in our Quangos and civil service.

You wonder why I defend a United States of Europe they can't be worse can they?

Beekeeper wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

At least we don't get poisonous snakes and bloody big crocodiles swimming around in our floods...

  

AND, don't forget those cranky farmers and stranded tourists wading out amongst them !

  

I'm sure the crocs and poisonous snakes are eternally grateful for their presence.

They don't appear to worry you though (the crocs and snakes, not the tourists); would your real name be Crocodile Dunbee, perchance?

Seamen Staines wrote:Forgive me but for years dredging the rivers was carried out. Knowing we have worse weather the decision not to dredge is irresponsible yet the top man is oblivious or impervious to criticism.

He falls back on he there's not enough money. Sorry you spent £2.5million on PR. The cost of dredging circa £100k.

Will he keep his job? Probably incompetence is a valued commodity in our Quangos and civil service.

You wonder why I defend a United States of Europe they can't be worse can they.

Could have been reasons for that, who knows:

After entering office in 2010, David Cameron promised to lead "the most open and transparent government in the world". But once again, the coalition has fallen foul of the number crunchers at the UK Statistics Authority. This time, the dispute centres over the Treasury's presentation of figures on infrastructure investment in the government's National Infrastructure Plan.

When the document was published last December, several were struck by how the unusual logarithmic scale used on one of the graphs made it appear as if investment was balanced across all sectors, including, most pertinently, flood defence. In fact, the government had spent £4bn in this area, compared to £218bn on energy, £121bn on transport and £14bn on communications. But the graph, as shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Chris Leslie noted in a letter to UK Statistics Authority head Andrew Dilnot, suggested otherwise.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/coalition-rebuked-again-uk-statistics-authority-time-flood-defence-spending